'Current graphics are good enough' - Facepalm

[veloper]

There's still a few areas left that can be improved "for free" on the developers' end, so the games don't need to cost more and can still be fancier.

1. Add texture memory. Goes especially for consoles. Textures aren't drawn by pixel artists, they all start out high quality and then get scaled down to get the game to run. Low rez textures and late texture popping can be improved by adding more texture memory.

2. Run games at a higher speeds and at a higher resolution, instead of adding more detail to models. 30 fps plays sluggish and unresponsive to someone who's seen 60 fps, maybe a few slow people excepted. Modern TVs can output 1080p at 60hz and above.
Again mostly a console issue. A PC gamer can already have the means to run most modern games as fast and sharp as his screen allows.

Graphics is the easy stuff really.
Smart AIs to play better games against us are still as far away as ever, because most of the burden is on the coder.

 

[Terminate421]

There is more room but I'd say Graphics are just good on their own, just look at this:

It looks believable in itself. We'll get full on realism but Graphics are fine now to the point as to where "AMAZING GRAPHICS!!!" Is no longer a valid argument to get a game (Except MAYBE Battlefield 3)

 

[DD Commander]

the thing is we are reaching the point where continuing to chase the graphical dream as it were is starting to get to a bad % increase in beauty verus cost ratio.

With games budgets sky-rocketing ANY good reason to hold us here for a while is actually a good one.

And while i am aware we can get much better (i play bf3 on pc, ofc i know lol) but in all honesty i think waiting is in our best interests.

While I believe that games should go for the graphical increase, soon the budget for making current-gen graphics will cause games to either be the new crysis or a retro game in comparison. There will be no middle ground.

 

[Erttheking]

Graphics are pretty low on the list of things I care about in a game. I think that Halo Reach, Skyrim, Dark Souls and Mass Effect look good enough (although admitably the faces in Mass Effect could use a little work) but I'm satisfied with the way things are.

 

[daveman247]

dead space 2.

Excellant example. Dead space 2 looks great on every platform, even if my xbox one had to come on two disks Im guessing they were able to do that because of the cramped enviroments though *which fits the game*.

But then we have GTA4 and red dead graphics, and they are sandbox!

Lesson: Stop using unreal 3 and use euphoria instead!


Still: I'd rather see more enemies onscreen, bigger enviroments/ ways to get around them. Better animation. Or at the very top, better AI. I cant believe most games STILL have the "stand there and shoot" kind of AI.

Syndicate had great AI (most of the time). They actually gave ther impression that they would rather not be killed.

 

[omega 616]

Sorry but most of the posts in this thread sound pretty "13 year old COD player thinks he knows about games", with as much generalization as that sentence can muster.

"We need better graphics" do we really? Can you make out trees from people? Can you make out water from the floor? Do AAA games look bad to any reasonable standard? No! Graphics are fine.

I always read on this site that graphics are one of the least important but now it seems they are second to nothing.

I think we need a lot more gameplay elements and mechanics going on way before we get better graphics. How many of us can jump into just about any and automatically know how shit works? There hasn't been anything new in gameplay mechanics, beyond "you are the controller" (which was on the PS2) in years.

AI could do with a massive improvement, how many of us are sick to death of the dumb ass AI? Or to word it differently, how many of us have played resident evil 5? "oh, you took 1 hit and now your previously full life bar has a bit missing? Imma use this first aid spray on you!".

Hell what about improving your effect on the world? What about in assassins creed you can fail to assassinate people and if you fail enough the baddies get there way and you get better and better endings the more you kill? Or you are given assassinations and have to lay the blame on an innocent person and depending on if you accomplish that you get a different story?

All these are far more important than freaking graphics.

 

[Terminate421]

dead space 2.

Excellant example. Dead space 2 looks great on every platform, even if my xbox one had to come on two disks Im guessing they were able to do that because of the cramped enviroments though *which fits the game*.

But then we have GTA4 and red dead graphics, and they are sandbox!

Lesson: Stop using unreal 3 and use euphoria instead!


Still: I'd rather see more enemies onscreen, bigger enviroments/ ways to get around them. Better animation. Or at the very top, better AI. I cant believe most games STILL have the "stand there and shoot" kind of AI.

Syndicate had great AI (most of the time). They actually gave ther impression that they would rather not be killed.

Bungie are Damn Good at enemy AI, please tell me you have seen their shit. Even going so far back to Halo 2 were they smart.

The Elites in Reach...Oh shit, I'd believe they were real! (Might I also mention the graphics were slick in Reach as well)

 

[Kahunaburger]

I'm not sure higher graphical standards are 100% a good thing. You can make a good case that the shift towards graphics and a pseudo-cinematic experience gives us pretty but shallow games. On the other hand, lower graphical barriers to entry are pretty unambiguously good.

 

[Vegosiux]

Sorry but most of the posts in this thread sound pretty "13 year old COD player thinks he knows about games", with as much generalization as that sentence can muster.

"We need better graphics" do we really? Can you make out trees from people? Can you make out water from the floor? Do AAA games look bad to any reasonable standard? No! Graphics are fine.

I always read on this site that graphics are one of the least important but now it seems they are second to nothing.

I think we need a lot more gameplay elements and mechanics going on way before we get better graphics. How many of us can jump into just about any and automatically know how shit works? There hasn't been anything new in gameplay mechanics, beyond "you are the controller" (which was on the PS2) in years.

AI could do with a massive improvement, how many of us are sick to death of the dumb ass AI? Or to word it differently, how many of us have played resident evil 5? "oh, you took 1 hit and now your previously full life bar has a bit missing? Imma use this first aid spray on you!".

Hell what about improving your effect on the world? What about in assassins creed you can fail to assassinate people and if you fail enough the baddies get there way and you get better and better endings the more you kill? Or you are given assassinations and have to lay the blame on an innocent person and depending on if you accomplish that you get a different story?

All these are far more important than freaking graphics.

I second this. Yes, I know it's awesome to show off your new hardware and brag about who has a bigger p...olygon count, but really, all this obsession with graphics is starting to annoy me.

I'm jumping on the side with people who say "Quit it with the graphics, and use the harware and processing power on other gameplay elements if you have to 'keep pushing the boundaries' or whatever your sales pitch is."

 

[Lucem712]

While I agree that a new console generation would spur innovation (which, it wouldn't do right away because companies would be developing and just sending out clone crap and filler for launch)

I think arguing for a new generation simply for graphics sake is shoddy, to say the least. So you can get photo-realistic graphics on a PC, does that make a game more enjoyable? Ooh, this tree is so realistic. We seem to be mistaking graphic capability for aesthetics, Crysis is a beautiful game, but is it more beautiful that Super Mario? I don't think so. Is Heavy Rain by graphic capability alone better than Fat Princess? No, of course not. We judge games on many different levels and a game can be beautiful without the highest polygon count.

 

[daveman247]

halo

D'oh: Yes and halo, some of the best AI i have seen They do a pretty good job of looking after themselves too! Except the grunts, but they're just fodder really.

 

[daveman247]

choices

I agree. i would happily take a dip in graphics for better playabilty. Or a game which can change in hundreds of ways depending on what you do. Making each players play-through literally unique to them. It would be epic.

They need to take fallout/ mass effect/ deus ex's slight diversions of story to the next level.

 

[Vegosiux]

We need to get games that actually work before we worry about attempting to make them look any nicer.

Building on that, we need games that work on computers that are not from the future. I'm pretty sure the graphics obsession is way stronger with the people who have enough disposable income to keep upgrading their hardware all the time. I mean, few years ago, a setup that was top of the line today was still decent a few years later. Nowadays? Hey, if you bought it yesterday, it's obsolete already. Yes, exaggerating a bit, but seriously, I wish this would stop, it does nothing to improve the gaming experience...

 

[Kahunaburger]

choices

I agree. i would happily take a dip in graphics for better playabilty. Or a game which can change in hundreds of ways depending on what you do. Making each players play-through literally unique to them. It would be epic.

They need to take fallout/ mass effect/ deus ex's slight diversions of story to the next level.

Well, the earlier Fallouts were pretty good at this. Witcher 2 I think is a good example of how far AAA games can be stretched in terms of choice-based variation (about 50% of the game's content is branching) and also IMO shows the weaknesses of high production values in terms of C&C.

Oddly, the game with the most story choice I've played recently was a JRPG - Devil Survivor. Basically, everything you do in that game is on a Fallout-esque time limit, certain story events happen at certain times only, and everything you do other than grinding for XP comes at an opportunity cost in terms of ability to pursue other story routes. Significantly more branching story content than Witcher 2, basically because text and sprites are easier to generate story content for than intricate fully voice-acted cutscenes.

In terms of games with significant gameplay depth, the roguelike genre blows basically everything else out of the water in terms of gameplay flexibility. This is in large part because they have basically no graphics: it's all ASCII. The traditional protagonist is an @.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I would say that current graphics tech has already constricted many a game this generation.

The PS2/XBOX/Gamecube era really hit the sweet spot, but this generation's games feel like they're buckling under the weight of their own graphical power. And I still don't think many developers have really reached a comfort zone yet regarding this.

I dread what the next generation of graphics will do to the games industry. I know I won't buy the next Playstation/XBOX on their high end graphics alone anymore. They're gonna have come up with something worth my time and money, instead of simply showing me the next iteration of shiny graphics.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Well it really depends on the type of game

While I agree that a new console generation would spur innovation (which, it wouldn't do right away because companies would be developing and just sending out clone crap and filler for launch)

I think arguing for a new generation simply for graphics sake is shoddy, to say the least. So you can get photo-realistic graphics on a PC, does that make a game more enjoyable? Ooh, this tree is so realistic. We seem to be mistaking graphic capability for aesthetics, Crysis is a beautiful game, but is it more beautiful that Super Mario? I don't think so. Is Heavy Rain by graphic capability alone better than Fat Princess? No, of course not. We judge games on many different levels and a game can be beautiful without the highest polygon count.

Spoiler: I think these belong to you

I'd add to this that it depends a lot on the type of game too, for example games like Mass Effect are all about trying to achieve an epic cinematic experience so they are all about the fidelity of the graphics where as a game like say Tetris is more about strategy and quick thinking so flashy visuals would just be distracting.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Crysis/The Witcher 2 level graphics are the best we need.

Like literally nothing I've seen beats those games in terms of photorealism. Crysis 2 even look like a movie at some point.

We don't need better graphics than that.

Again, fail. Are you seriously saying the graphics on those were as you as those in the Take back Earth trailer linked above? If so, opticians appointment for you....

No, it's a distinct fail on YOUR part. Do you know how much fucking money it would cost to make a full-length game with those kinds of graphics? Let alone purchasing the necessary hardware to run it in the first place?

GTA4 took like 100 million dollars to make, and that game's pretty fuck-ugly. We're reaching a point where the increasing costs of developing superior graphics are too much to overcome.

Developers should focus on gameplay, story, and mechanics before they focus on graphics, because those things are actually what MATTER. This is the same reason why "Citizen Kane" is and always will be better than "Avatar".

Cost. That does not mean it is not possible or that people should be satisfied with the current state of affairs. Cost is a reason we may not be getting there quickly, not a reason not to even try. So fail to you...

I want ME4 with visuals the same as in the Take Back Earth trailer.

 

[TehCookie]

I thought graphics were good enough during the PS2 era. Honestly if I can tell what something is it's good enough for me. Old graphics help immersion for me since I have to imagine the details while in a current more realistic game I notice when things are slightly off. Old games were like reading a book, everything is there and described but you can still imagine it the way you want to while current games are more like movies and fill in all those little details for you. Also good enough doesn't mean the best, I'd say graphics can improve but I'd rather focus on improving other parts of the game first. IMHO instead of focusing on how pretty a game looks I'd rather focus on what you can do in the world, being able to interact in multiple ways with everyone and everything and the effects those actions may have.

 

[Lucem712]

Well it really depends on the type of game

While I agree that a new console generation would spur innovation (which, it wouldn't do right away because companies would be developing and just sending out clone crap and filler for launch)

I think arguing for a new generation simply for graphics sake is shoddy, to say the least. So you can get photo-realistic graphics on a PC, does that make a game more enjoyable? Ooh, this tree is so realistic. We seem to be mistaking graphic capability for aesthetics, Crysis is a beautiful game, but is it more beautiful that Super Mario? I don't think so. Is Heavy Rain by graphic capability alone better than Fat Princess? No, of course not. We judge games on many different levels and a game can be beautiful without the highest polygon count.

Spoiler: I think these belong to you

I'd add to this that it depends a lot on the type of game too, for example games like Mass Effect are all about trying to achieve an epic cinematic experience so they are all about the fidelity of the graphics where as a game like say Tetris is more about strategy and quick thinking so flashy visuals would just be distracting.

Woohoo, when I saw the notification I thought it was going to be someone angrily arguing with me and that they'd have relations with my mother! You win an internetz for surprising me

 

[Kahunaburger]

IMHO instead of focusing on how pretty a game looks I'd rather focus on what you can do in the world, being able to interact in multiple ways with everyone and everything and the effects those actions may have.

+1.

I'd rather have fire that spreads and burns things realistically than really pretty fire graphics.